Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 8:36:05
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glyden's post-3con, posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2007, at 8:13:58
> > I can understand your frustration. The fact is there is no coverage of threads going off topic in the policies. The monopolizing (or thread thiefs) of threads and BOARDS is suppose to be addressed by the three post guideline but there are no guidelines regarding the volume of posts to boards and the number of threads a poster can post to.
> >
> > I would like to see the med board, in particular, be more effective to the needs of "most" as opposed to needing the needs of, say, one..... sigh...
> >
> > I have seen where not addressing a problem on a board (IMO a problem), ends up becoming a cataylist for those so frustrated to be the ones who get PBCed. I think we should ALL be accountable for our posts. I have seen what appears lack of the application of accountibility to some posters..... I think that will continue.
> >
> > BTW, I have utilized the notify feature to ask regarding particular posts.
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...by the three post guidline but there are no guidlines regarding the volume of posts...and the number of threads a member can post to...].
> I have the following concerns:
> A. If there is not a guidline concerning the volume of posts, which could mean that a single post could be , let's say, 1000 words, then I am concerned that that in and of itself could show an intent of the maker of the three-consecutive-post rule.
> B. If there is no restriction on the volume of a post, and the administration could consolodate three posts by one member, that do not have another member's name in between, and have the member's name just one time after the consolodation of the three posts, I am concerned that a motive by the maker of the three -consecutive post rule could be inferred.
> C. It is written here,[...no guidlines as to the number of threads a member can post to...] I am concerned that such a rule, if it was innitiated, as to how the rule could be supportive to the mission of the forum which is for support and education.
> The concerns of mine above, could or could not be concerns of other members here.
> LouFriends,
Let us look at the 3-consecutive post rule. The intent as stated by the maker of the rule is that there could be some members that the maker of the rule calls {less-confident} posters, and that in some way if , I guess, they see a member's name 4 times without another member's name in between, that that is a cause for the rule to be made. I base this on that there is no rule here as to the volume of a single post nor is there a rule as to the number of threads a member could post to.
If then the intent of that rule is in regards to {appearance} of a person's name 4 times without another mamber's name in between, then I am concerned that there is a potential for one to think that the amker of the rule is making a higher priority here of the rule to elevate that intent above the mission of the forum if the rule prohibits one from offering education and support.
This comes into play in a case on the board now where one is posting to another about suicide in regards to what the bible says or does not say concerning that and brings Jesus into the post and what is the truth. I would like to offer support and education in hopes to help the member in regards to what the bible says or does not say about suicide and since I am a Jew, the posts from me will be from a Jewish perspective. This could mean that I may have to break down what I have to say into very small precepts that may be unbeknownst to some of the reading members of that thread concerned about what the bible says or does not say about suicide. This could mean that I need more than 3 consecutive posts to bring out the support and education that I could offer here. There is also that I may need to post the foundation of Jewdaism which is that my God has revealed to me a commandment to me that XXX (the foundation of Jewdaism). Both have posts by Robert Hsiung directed to me to restrain me from posting that here even though the mission of that forum is for the posting of the service and worshiping of God or the supernatural. Is not a revelation from God considered to be in the rhelm of the supernatural?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:802413
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/802423.html